Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

First Person: Kevin Wamsley

Outrage over Chinese crackdown on Tibet demonstrates why the Olympics can never be separate from politics

When China was awarded the 2008 Olympic Summer Games by the International Olympic Committee, former International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Juan Antonio Samaranch said: “I think this is a very important step in the evolution of China’s relation to the world.”

The IOC’s past executive director, Francois Carrard, went one step further: “Some people say, because of human rights issues, ‘We close the door and say no.’ The other way is to bet on openness. Bet on the fact that in the coming seven years, openness, progress and development in many areas will be such that the situation has improved. We are taking the bet that seven years from now we will see many changes.”

It appears, in light of China’s recent crackdown on Tibet, continued threats to Taiwan, stonewalling over the crises in Sudan and Burma, and denial of personal freedoms for the Chinese people, that Carrard has lost his bet. For all appearances, China today is still very much the same China as yesterday when it comes to human rights, defending its interests, stifling free speech and freedom of the press, and maintaining its empire.

The recent Chinese military crackdown on Tibetan protestors, marking the anniversary of China’s invasion and occupation of that country on March 10, 1950, has reportedly resulted in up to 160 deaths and prompted an international call to boycott the 2008 Summer Games, or at the very least the opening ceremonies. The 2008 torch relay is also being met with protestors at every stop in Europe, and this week officials in France even had to extinguish the torch to escape from an angry crowd of 4,000 protestors.

In response to the controversy, current IOC president Jacques Rogge has promised to talk to Chinese leaders, while essentially backpedaling on earlier claims that the Olympics could draw attention to China’s human rights record and transform the country to be more fair and democratic. Now Rogge’s position is that the Olympics are primarily a sporting event, and that the IOC is not a political organization.

He also insisted, in an interview with the Associated Press, that human rights have improved in China as a result of the Games, although he didn’t provide any examples.

Whether the Games can influence a country to become more open or democratic is always a matter of debate, but it’s safe to say that Kevin Wamsley, a history professor and director of the International Center for Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, is on record as being skeptical.

When China won the right to host the Olympics in 2001, Wamsley told the New York Times, “There is a feeling that the Olympic Games promote world peace and humanitarian causes and can impact social change immediately…. History has shown the Games have not done these kinds of things.”

Flash forward to 2008 and Wamsley is just as skeptical. It’s not that he dislikes the Games, but doubts that any Olympics has the power to change the world.

Pique caught up to Wamsley last week to discuss China, what Vancouver and Whistler can expect in 2010, and what the Games are all about.

 

Pique: Most people would agree that the Games are far more than just an international sporting event, when you look at the economics, marketing, and politics that go into winning and hosting an event. Does that open the door to more political statements and protests like we’re seeing in Tibet?

Kevin Wamsley: For the last 60 years it’s been the case. There were boycotts of a political nature starting in the 1950s, and before that related to other minor issues. But the Suez Canal crisis in the 1950s, apartheid in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and the big ones with Russia and the U.S. in 1980 and 1984 are the boycotts that stick out. The IOC had made the Olympics the most important sporting festival in the world by the late 1920s, and politicians and dissenters have always known they could make great hay with the Olympic Games. That’s 20 to 25 years after the Games were established, so it’s nothing new.

 

Pique: Do the Olympics have the power to change countries or is the IOC overreaching?

KW: The Olympic Games have always presented themselves as having the power to educate people and countries, although they’ve shown otherwise, that they do the opposite. (The Games) are used to rationalize or legitimize the regimes that are in place and affirm what they’re doing in the host countries.

 

Pique: So China gets the Games and turns around and tells its people that this is proof that they’re great, they’re doing everything right? If they were bad, they wouldn’t get the Games?

KW: Exactly. Olympic Games are not going to force a nation to do anything different or for China to change their policies in Tibet, or stop persecuting people in China, or ease up their posture on the Taiwan issue. I think China would give up the Games in a heartbeat to solve the Tibet or Taiwan issue.

There’s just no historical evidence to demonstrate that Olympics or boycotts can change foreign policy or domestic policy.

In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. If you have a problem in your country the Olympic Games are not going to fix it, but can sometimes make it worse. Anyone who thinks that the Games can share values and educate a country is quite naïve.

 

Pique: What about the call to boycott China? Should it be up to individuals or nations, or should we just not bother?

KW: I know teams and individuals won’t do it. The impetus for a boycott comes from heads of state, and teams and athletes have no interest in boycotting a Games over political issues. They might if they were protesting against the IOC because there was an issue with their sporting event, like the marathoner (Haile Gebrselassie) pulling out of Beijing because of the pollution issues, but not because of politics. This is something these people work full time for years and years to participate in, and they’re not going to pass up on the chance to compete.

As for boycotting the opening ceremonies, that’s really pretty lame even as a symbolic gesture. If you have a serious issue with a country’s policies, how about economic or military sanctions if you’re serious?

 

Pique: What can Canada expect in 2010 when it comes to protests and international action?

KW: In 1988 our torch relay was protested along the way, and there was demonstrating in Calgary in favour of aboriginal rights for the Lubicon Cree in Alberta, so we should be very familiar with protests by now. It’s very possible in Vancouver, although there are more First Nations partnerships than in Calgary, and First Nations people are involved in the planning and execution of the Games, and will be part of the opening ceremonies. But there are still outstanding issues with respect to aboriginal rights in B.C., and some (aboriginal) groups are already in opposition to the Games.

B.C. is a very actively democratic province in the sense that there’s more debate about social issues than you’d see in Alberta, which tends to be more conservative, so I think we could reasonably expect poverty activists, housing protests, and those types of things. The same groups that didn’t think Vancouver’s bid was a good idea in the first place will probably have a political interest in some sort of demonstration in 2010.

 

Pique: What about our other dirty laundry, like Canada reneging on Kyoto or the seal hunt?

KW: There may be protests, if the groups think the Games are significant enough, but those sort of topics are usually reserved for things like G8 meetings. However, I wouldn’t rule it out. These things follow the media, and the Games offer one of the greatest concentrations of media anywhere.

 

Pique: Given the fact that hosting the Games opens us up to criticism, and that media are always looking for controversy as well as reporting on events, is it possible that hosting the Games could hurt us in the end?

KW: It depends what you mean by hurt. Taking on the Games means taking on a considerable debt load, but if (the organizers) can bypass that very significant issue then they can suggest that the Games are a good thing for Vancouver and Canada, and can easily say that no protest is going to be able to hurt the country or overshadow the success of the Games. That’s not me talking, but that’s the reason why the organizing committee has taken on the role of host. They think the Games are a good thing and will do their best to achieve success despite what the critics might say.

As for actual damage, money has always been an issue in how the Games are perceived. Athens put itself through a financial nightmare in 2004 with a $17 billion deficit, essentially breaking European Union regulations governing your percentage of debt to the population.

Cities like Antwerp in 1920 and London in 1948 put on the Games at great expense when those countries were destroyed by World War I, and World War II respectively. They saw the Games as a nation-building exercise and welcomed taking on the extra debt, although it was not good financially.

Munich hosted the Games in 1972 to make up some ground internationally from 1936 (when Hitler was in power), and that certainly didn’t happen when the Israeli athletes were killed by terrorists.

As sporting events those events were somewhat successful, but the cities themselves didn’t benefit as they expected.

 

Pique: Can the Games actually make money, as we’ve been told, or achieve what the organizers set out to achieve?

KW: I don’t think so, but that’s a matter of opinion. It’s very difficult to put numbers on the attention (Olympic Games) bring to a city, so people that support the hypothesis that Games are more good than harmful financially, socially, and environmentally will always argue that the spectacle and coverage by media is a priceless enterprise that encourages unprecedented economic development. From a balance sheet perspective though, the price tag is very high — particularly when you consider that Sydney, Australia and Vancouver are already popular tourist destinations without the Games.

 

Pique: In light of what’s happening in China, and the fact that the Games do encourage an investment infrastructure, would it have been better if the 2008 Games were awarded to Toronto?

KW: It was a prime opportunity for that city. It’s unfortunate now that (the Games) are in Vancouver because we now have a duplicate set of winter facilities in Canada, in Vancouver and Calgary, plus the new facilities in Salt Lake City. That’s a triangle of new facilities, which is really quite an investment for a limited number of world championships and winter events being held in the decades to follow.

 

Pique: Are the Games too serious? In 1988 we had Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bobsled Team, and in the last Olympics we had the African swimmer that could barely make it to the other side of the pool. Should it be about excellence or participation?

KW: I think because of the great financial networks attached to the Games it puts the Games in an awkward position when these things happen. It’s fun to make light of it, but sponsors want to attach their names to something of great significance, and have always packaged the Games as being the best of the best.

The athletes don’t appreciate it either. They dedicate their lives to world championships and Olympic Games, and it’s serious and important to them. I think they would argue to the contrary to letting amateurs in even if they make good stories.

 

Pique: It’s said that each Games contributes something to the Olympic repertoire. What will Vancouver’s contribution be?

KW: Keep in mind that this Olympic package has played itself out for more than 100 years, and the Winter Olympics by more than 80 years, so what else can we really do? It’s a preordained package that’s put into place. The scenery can make the Games unique, and the city, but really it’s a repetition of facilities and events that are always similar if not quite identical. There are nuances in the ceremonies and rituals, and torch relays as they wind through the country are quite memorable for people and will be memorable for Canadians. People in Vancouver will probably remember the opening and closing ceremonies as long as the people in Calgary. But I find the Games are more germane to local residents. For the consumers who watch from a distance, there’s more of a tendency for these things to blend together, as a television spectacle often does.

 

Pique: Can this ever be seen as Canada’s Games, given a recent survey in Halifax where half the people didn’t know where the 2010 Games were being held?

KW: There aren’t a lot of benefits outside of the host cities to expect, except for the things that resonate for the rest of the country like the torch relay, and the pleasure the Games offer for those who like to watch. The torch relay will see people come out by the millions, and anywhere it comes through it will generate a lot of excitement. After the Summer Games, when Vancouver is allowed to really promote itself as an Olympic city, there will be a lot more information getting out there.

 

Pique: What about legacies, what are the legacies of 2010?

KW: Legacies are whatever is left over, like the facilities. It’s an opportunity I suppose, but legacies are also something that needs to be invested in for the next 40 years. Vancouver is going to have to invest further in keeping itself up as an Olympic city, as Calgary has done, to be a part of a tourism promotion package, and will pay to keep the symbols up and in people’s minds. That requires people working at it and constant investment in facilities that cost a lot to maintain and upgrade.

The Games can provide some infrastructure for young athletes, which is great. The Olympic oval in Calgary is an example of a legacy that’s widely used and that is very beneficial to the community. A bobsled and luge track, however, which is only of use for development team and national team members who are few in number, is harder to justify, unless of course there are enough people out there willing to spend $60 to go halfway down the track. But it’s been my experience that those facilities do not make money, and need to be subsidized for a long, long time.

 

Pique: What about the drug and doping issue. Can the 2010 Games be clean? Will there be a level playing field in 2010?

KW: There never has been a level playing field. That’s one of the great mythologies of elite sports, and it’s a fallacy because different countries allocate different amounts of money into sport, and have different facilities for training. It’s never level because of how resources are allocated. As for doping, there’s no evidence to suggest that doping is slowing down. We’re catching people, but we’re also having difficulty keeping up with the technology of the cheaters. So yes, there will be doping in Vancouver.

 

Pique: How are the 2010 organizers doing overall? Is there anything you would do differently?

KW: So far from what I’ve seen of the Games’ organizers, is that they’re fairly approachable and doing a good job managing the public. They seem to have a tremendous amount of energy, they’re carrying out things on time, they’re signing sponsors. Unfortunately they can never be transparent, which is the nature of the beast. I would prefer full public disclosure, but in a way an organizing committee is a full corporate entity and that’s not something that’s possible.

 

Pique: Would people be surprised if they could see what is in the books?

KW: I don’t know if anyone would be shocked, but I think people would be a little surprised if they knew what was being spent housing IOC members, for example, or other dignitaries. Right now those costs are hidden.

 

Pique: Because of the way that federal governments will match funds to host Games, is there a cynical sense that cities want to host Games just so they can get that investment in infrastructure?

GW: These are the taxpayers’ Games, there’s no doubt about it. Yes, there’s a formula for accessing funds from TV revenues and sponsorship, but infrastructure is in the hands of taxpayers, provincial and federal taxpayers, and the Games have a way of getting those projects done. Where that becomes a problem is when you run a deficit, because on paper the people of B.C. are responsible for any deficit.

That said, the province will look to the federal government for a bailout from any deficit, but it’s only after the Games are successful that they can ask. The organizers have also done a pretty good job raising sponsorship money, so that helps with the cost.

 

Pique: Getting back to China, did the people of Tibet use the attention of the Olympics to leverage their cause?

KW: (The protests) were on the anniversary of the invasion so they would have happened anyway, they happen every year. This latest crisis is a bit more of a coincidence in respect to the torch relay, which made it an opportune time to draw attention to that part of the world. There would have been protests regardless, but the difference is that we were paying attention (this year) because of the Games.

 

Pique: So without the Games, we would have ignored the protests and China’s crackdown. Could that vindicate the Games by bringing international attention to the people of Tibet?

GW: The crackdowns are more severe with the Olympics, I would imagine. I’m speculating, but how many people are dead already beyond the 160 that we know of? These protests happen every year, but I would anticipate that they cracked down more severely this year because of the Olympics Games and the embarrassment those protests could cause. I don’t see a positive effect there — the (Chinese) response was swift, and you knew it wasn’t going to be good.

 

Pique: Listening to you speak, I wonder where you stand on the Games. Are you opposed to the Games, or are you just being realistic and looking at the Games dispassionately?

GW: That’s just it, it’s important to have perspective when you look at the Games. I’m very supportive of the athletes and enjoy the competition, but sport has its good parts and bad parts.

Overall the Olympic Games tend to get blown out of proportion and there are problems at different levels with financing, politics and conflict. If (the Games) were scaled down, like the world championships, there would be fewer problems.

 

Pique: It can seem like sports are only a part of the Games these days rather than the focus.

KW: It was never just about the athletes, which is unfortunate. The Games have been political from day one.



Comments